Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Reviving a Misconceived Secrecy Bill

Last year, a dangerously misguided piece of legislation that would have criminalized the disclosure of any kind of classified information was killed by President Clinton's veto. Now, emboldened by the presumption that President Bush would be more likely to sign such a measure, its principal sponsor, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, is preparing to resurrect the idea.

In an abdication of its responsibility to subject important legislation to thoughtful debate, Congress blithely approved the bill last year without so much as holding a single public hearing on the matter. We trust that Senator Bob Graham, who became chairman of the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats took control of the Senate, will not want to abuse his powers in a similar fashion. The single day of hearings that the committee has scheduled immediately after Labor Day cannot possibly do justice to the sensitive issues raised by the Shelby scheme.

If they invite a robust debate about the bill, Mr. Graham and other committee members, including the Democrats Carl Levin and John Edwards and Republicans Richard Lugar and Pat Roberts, should recognize that the broad restrictions of the Shelby plan could seriously harm American democracy. They can then do the country a favor by burying the proposal in committee. The measure is likely to be offered as an amendment to the annual intelligence authorization bill.

On more than one occasion in recent years, the nation has been well served by the timely disclosure of information the government has been trying to keep secret. By subjecting such revelations to criminal penalties, even where no legitimate national security interests are involved, Mr. Shelby's approach would impoverish public debate.

Last year's bill would have criminalized disclosure of the kind of information Americans need to debate issues like the effectiveness of Washington's military aid to Colombia's drug war or the chances for success of a new peacekeeping operation in Macedonia. It would have made it easier to cover up the lawlessness of the Iran-contra affair and would even penalize public disclosure of government historical papers. Although its penalties are aimed at leakers, not journalists, those who publish leaked material could be summoned before grand juries and asked to reveal their sources.

The government already has ample powers, including criminal sanctions, to investigate and prosecute officials suspected of revealing especially sensitive information. Responsible news organizations, for their part, are mindful of the security concerns when they handle this kind of information. For less serious cases, the government can use a range of administrative penalties, from taking away security clearances to dismissal and even a lifetime ban on future government employment. There is no reasonable justification for extending criminal penalties to broader categories of classified information.